Jump to content
JaguarCrazy2832

NFL Draft: What do we need NOW and LATER

Recommended Posts

On 26/03/2020 at 6:36 AM, .Buzz said:

Starting to wonder with us finding vet depth everywhere outside of OL if that's the route we're taking at 9. All the other dire positions have at least a little bit of help there.

3T is an argument, but feel like you can find good options there later if need be...although Brown/Kinlaw are probably my favorite options. After that though is definitely one of the top OT's.

Yeah.  I mean...you can't just leave the OLine like that, and not address it with a significant pick.  Can you?  It fundamentally was not good enough and needs real upgrading if you want to do anything good with the offense.  It was so bad, their awfulness was pretty much directly used as the excuse for pulling the plug on the Foles experiment.  To not even address it...what?

I'd be cool with going the draft route for a LT like that though.  It's probably my preferred option at this point...so i'd be happy if that's where they go.  That's where you going to find a quality LT without massively overpaying on an aging guy in FA.

 

On 26/03/2020 at 9:56 AM, .Buzz said:

Think I prefer Wirfs too due to versatility, but as a pure LT prospect it may be Becton for me. 

Thomas is the safest LT and you know he's going to be rock solid imo. So I wouldn't get upset about him either. Just think Becton can be a top flight elite franchise LT for the next decade at his highest and although Thomas will be a franchise LT, I don't think his upside is quite as high. Counterpoint is Becton has a lower floor. So it really just depends on the person as far as that debate goes imo.

The versatility with Wirfs is nice.  Versatility is never a bad thing.  But i'm of the mind that you have to go in drafting that high, expecting that they are going to work out at LT.  If you don't think they stand a really strong chance of working out at LT...you probably shouldn't be drafting them that high.  With Wirfs, the "versatility" kinda feels like it's getting used with a bit of an implication that, "it's good he looks like a plug 'n play guard, because he probably won't hack it as a tackle".  It's hard to see him at LT in the NFL.  Never say never, and there's a lot to like there...i'd just rather they swing on more of a pure LT.

It's gotta be Becton for me, if he's there.  The upside is big.

Wills is a curious case, in that i actually could see him working out at LT, but without actually seeing it...who knows?  And Thomas is almost the opposite of Wirfs, in that if he doesn't make it at LT...it's probably going to be a play strength and athleticism sort of issue, where i don't really like how he'd project inside so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BayRaider said:

You guys really think Herbert is a hard no for your FO at 9? I think Chargers sign Cam and pass. 
 

You can’t look my in the eye and tell me Minshew is a Franchise QB. And who knows if you’ll ever be in this position again to draft one. 

I mean...never say never.  This is essentially the front office that Bortle'd.  But i really don't see it.  Not at 9...and certainly not trading up to take a QB.  That second 1st round pick is critical to this team plugging all sorts of glaring holes in the roster, in a year where this front office have to make some inroads toward winning games.

 

16 hours ago, Chops013 said:

Yeah, can’t envision a scenario where we go QB in the first. As mentioned above, this CO is in win-now mode... they don’t have the luxury of developing a QB.

Much more likely they will being in Andy Dalton or Jameis to push Minshew. If it doesn’t work out then I’m sure we will be in prime position to go after Lawrence or Fields next year.

Yeah.  Just too many other holes to patch for a regime on thin ice.

I could still see them spending that Rams 1st on a QB if a guy they really love ends up falling to them at that point.  Might be just the ticket to buy them an extra year of leeway, by spinning it as "we've got this project QB we need an extra year to develop them and show what this team is capable of with them at the helm".  But even that seems unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  I mean...you can't just leave the OLine like that, and not address it with a significant pick.  Can you?  It fundamentally was not good enough and needs real upgrading if you want to do anything good with the offense.  It was so bad, their awfulness was pretty much directly used as the excuse for pulling the plug on the Foles experiment.  To not even address it...what?

I'd be cool with going the draft route for a LT like that though.  It's probably my preferred option at this point...so i'd be happy if that's where they go.  That's where you going to find a quality LT without massively overpaying on an aging guy in FA.

 

The versatility with Wirfs is nice.  Versatility is never a bad thing.  But i'm of the mind that you have to go in drafting that high, expecting that they are going to work out at LT.  If you don't think they stand a really strong chance of working out at LT...you probably shouldn't be drafting them that high.  With Wirfs, the "versatility" kinda feels like it's getting used with a bit of an implication that, "it's good he looks like a plug 'n play guard, because he probably won't hack it as a tackle".  It's hard to see him at LT in the NFL.  Never say never, and there's a lot to like there...i'd just rather they swing on more of a pure LT.

It's gotta be Becton for me, if he's there.  The upside is big.

Wills is a curious case, in that i actually could see him working out at LT, but without actually seeing it...who knows?  And Thomas is almost the opposite of Wirfs, in that if he doesn't make it at LT...it's probably going to be a play strength and athleticism sort of issue, where i don't really like how he'd project inside so much.

RG is the only thing that I think 100 percent gets addressed.

LT I see as a solid chance, and based on indications they seem to want more help there, but could see them banking on Cam being fully recovered from that ACL and expecting a jump...which I wouldn't agree with. But he should be better, just not enough to warrant not addressing either someone to push or battle it out with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

RG is the only thing that I think 100 percent gets addressed.

LT I see as a solid chance, and based on indications they seem to want more help there, but could see them banking on Cam being fully recovered from that ACL and expecting a jump...which I wouldn't agree with. But he should be better, just not enough to warrant not addressing either someone to push or battle it out with him.

Yeah.  Unfortunately...i can very much see them just ignoring the problem and assuming Cam being fully healthy with magically fix the issue and he'll take some huge step forward.  It doesn't really make sense to me...but they've done this kind of thing before.  So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even though I prefer Becton, I do think Thomas has gotten the prospect fatigue this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  I mean...you can't just leave the OLine like that, and not address it with a significant pick.  Can you?  It fundamentally was not good enough and needs real upgrading if you want to do anything good with the offense.  It was so bad, their awfulness was pretty much directly used as the excuse for pulling the plug on the Foles experiment.  To not even address it...what?

I'd be cool with going the draft route for a LT like that though.  It's probably my preferred option at this point...so i'd be happy if that's where they go.  That's where you going to find a quality LT without massively overpaying on an aging guy in FA.

 

The versatility with Wirfs is nice.  Versatility is never a bad thing.  But i'm of the mind that you have to go in drafting that high, expecting that they are going to work out at LT.  If you don't think they stand a really strong chance of working out at LT...you probably shouldn't be drafting them that high.  With Wirfs, the "versatility" kinda feels like it's getting used with a bit of an implication that, "it's good he looks like a plug 'n play guard, because he probably won't hack it as a tackle".  It's hard to see him at LT in the NFL.  Never say never, and there's a lot to like there...i'd just rather they swing on more of a pure LT.

It's gotta be Becton for me, if he's there.  The upside is big.

Wills is a curious case, in that i actually could see him working out at LT, but without actually seeing it...who knows?  And Thomas is almost the opposite of Wirfs, in that if he doesn't make it at LT...it's probably going to be a play strength and athleticism sort of issue, where i don't really like how he'd project inside so much.

i would 10 out of 10 Pick Q Nelson in the top 5 every year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LinderFournette said:

i would 10 out of 10 Pick Q Nelson in the top 5 every year. 

Although I love Wirfs, I don't see him as that tier of prospect coming out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Although I love Wirfs, I don't see him as that tier of prospect coming out. 

Yeah.  I like Wirfs, but the case for someone like Nelson Top-5/10, is a pretty unique one.  I mean...if that is what you're getting, sure...i guess i can kinda understand it.  But he was such a rare G prospect.  Like...truly generational, in that i can't think of anyone else even on that tier as a prospect...and we honestly may not see another G prospect of that caliber for 20 years.  Wirfs as a prospect, ain't that.  Even then...you've still gotta have the bookends at least reasonably sorted, or your stellar guard is gonna get exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a Jay Gruden connection with him coaching his dad. Think in round 2-3 he'll be under heavy consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  I like Wirfs, but the case for someone like Nelson Top-5/10, is a pretty unique one.  I mean...if that is what you're getting, sure...i guess i can kinda understand it.  But he was such a rare G prospect.  Like...truly generational, in that i can't think of anyone else even on that tier as a prospect...and we honestly may not see another G prospect of that caliber for 20 years.  Wirfs as a prospect, ain't that.  Even then...you've still gotta have the bookends at least reasonably sorted, or your stellar guard is gonna get exposed.

If i had to choose between an elite set of tackles or an elite interior ol im taking the interior.   With a bad interior line u can't really move up in the pocket and with bad tackles u can always have the te/rb help chip the edges and then release

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LinderFournette said:

If i had to choose between an elite set of tackles or an elite interior ol im taking the interior.   With a bad interior line u can't really move up in the pocket and with bad tackles u can always have the te/rb help chip the edges and then release

Much easier finding interior OL than tackles. Hence why it's rare to see a guard taken high in the draft and yet there's a legit chance of 4 OTs in the first 10-12 picks and why teams generally kick a guy inside as a last resort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, .Buzz said:

Much easier finding interior OL than tackles. Hence why it's rare to see a guard taken high in the draft and yet there's a legit chance of 4 OTs in the first 10-12 picks and why teams generally kick a guy inside as a last resort.

u dont need good Tackles to have a good offense. u need a good interior line to make sure these Interior rushers dont get to your qbs.  an interior Pass rush is much tougher to defend then an outside rusher.  with an outside rusher u can have a Back or te chip the edge rusher or have one of them stay in to help with x side. 

 

Look at the bucs offense from last year.  while winston was his Gunslinging normal self(30ints) their offense was pretty potent from a passing perspective and it had alot to do with Good Interior line play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LinderFournette said:

u dont need good Tackles to have a good offense. u need a good interior line to make sure these Interior rushers dont get to your qbs.  an interior Pass rush is much tougher to defend then an outside rusher.  with an outside rusher u can have a Back or te chip the edge rusher or have one of them stay in to help with x side. 

 

Look at the bucs offense from last year.  while winston was his Gunslinging normal self(30ints) their offense was pretty potent from a passing perspective and it had alot to do with Good Interior line play. 

That's not the point. I'm not saying interior OL isn't important. What I'm saying is you can find quality interior OL all over the draft. Look at TB who you're even referencing. Look at most top interior OL and where they were drafted.

AJ Cann was a problem at times, but we literally had to sit Nick Foles because Cam Robinson got pushed around like a rag doll I'm pass pro. Taylor struggled in pass pro too early on and thankfully picked it up as the season went. Linder has been above average and although we all dislike Norwell's contract he's largely average/fine outside of one terrible play every few games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Much easier finding interior OL than tackles. Hence why it's rare to see a guard taken high in the draft and yet there's a legit chance of 4 OTs in the first 10-12 picks and why teams generally kick a guy inside as a last resort.

Yeah.  Exactly.  It's not that Interior OL isn't important...it's just that you can often find guys later, without Top-10 picks.  And if you absolutely have to, i'd suggest it's slightly easier to partially shelter someone mediocre on the interior...compared out out on an island at tackle where there's absolutely no hiding.  They'll get exposed very badly.  I'd say Interior OLine is generally not as rare a skillset either.  Just easier to find decent to good players to plug in and get plenty adequate interior play.  Whereas if a guy doesn't have the ability to play Tackle, it's going to destroy your offense if guys are constantly getting beat off the edge.

It's kinda the other side of the coin that places a premium on top tier edge rushers.  Interior DLine is super important as well, but finding those guys who can post double-digit sort of sacks off the edge, is a kind of rare skillset+aptitude combo that is extra "premium" in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  Exactly.  It's not that Interior OL isn't important...it's just that you can often find guys later, without Top-10 picks.  And if you absolutely have to, i'd suggest it's slightly easier to partially shelter someone mediocre on the interior...compared out out on an island at tackle where there's absolutely no hiding.  They'll get exposed very badly.  I'd say Interior OLine is generally not as rare a skillset either.  Just easier to find decent to good players to plug in and get plenty adequate interior play.  Whereas if a guy doesn't have the ability to play Tackle, it's going to destroy your offense if guys are constantly getting beat off the edge.

It's kinda the other side of the coin that places a premium on top tier edge rushers.  Interior DLine is super important as well, but finding those guys who can post double-digit sort of sacks off the edge, is a kind of rare skillset+aptitude combo that is extra "premium" in the draft.

finding the double digit inteior rushers like Donald and Chris jones are worth more then a 10 sack edge rusher.  

i know madden isnt the end all be all but i can put up 700 yards offense on all-pro with the jags madden 2019 with Blake Bortles and our subpar OL minus Norwell and Linder. 

For reference point: Robinson-was like a 73/74  Norwell is like a 91 Linder is like 89 cann is like 70-72 parnell is 78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×